The Tragedy of Suburbia -James Howard Kunstler, 2004 What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The thesis of this lecture by James Howard Kunstler is that we have invested so much into sprawled suburban construction and shoddy suburban architecture that we have essentially created many places that are "not worth caring about." Kunstler argues that poor civic architecture and poor urban planning has resulted in the creation of an American landscape that is ugly and unsustainable. Kunstler concludes that no amount of remewable fuels will allow us to continue running this sprawling mess in the future and that we will by default have to revert to relying on the practices of New Urbanism to build new communities and local cultures in the coming era of oil scarcity.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
Political?
Politics are not specifically discussed in this lecture.
Legal?
Kunstler uses the example of a stark, prisonlike suburban "Hannibal Lecter Elementary School" in Las Vegas to show us that we have allowed irrational fears to dictate the way we design our buildings. Kunstler discusses this further in his other lectures/writings - he cites schools like this as being "designed by lawyers" where all the fun has been "engineered out" to avoid lawsuits.
Economic?
Kunstler argues that we have invested so much of our wealth and resources into the suburban lifestyle that we now resist having to make any adjustments because we are stuck in a "psychology of previous investment" and can't imagine ever having to change.
Technological?
Kunstler describes very well the technological progression of the suburban lifestyle in America. The very first suburbs were the "railroad" suburbs catering to the wealthy. These were followed by the "streetcar" suburbs that were built along mass transit lines. The first automobile suburbs popped up in the 1920s but due to the Depression and WWII these automobile suburbs didn't become common until the 1950s. The automobile suburb quickly became the dominant form of residential living in the US.
Media and informational?
The media's role in the expansion of suburbia is not specifically mentioned in this lecture.
Organizational?
Kunstler claims that the postwar generation discarded the prewar skillsets and methodologies for organizing buildings and communities in an organic, integral manner - the modernist mindset was prevalent in urban planning, architecture, and all other ideological practices. He is encouraged that the New Urbanists managed to rescue and revive the many prewar methodologies for building organization and ornamentation (street walls, blocks, courtyards, plazas, etc).
Educational?
Kunstler stresses that in the prewar era the manner in which we constructed our habitats served as educational tools for our society - our prewar environments reflected our civic aspirations, our cultural values, and our own perception of our culture and our understanding/awareness over where it was heading. All of that was lost in the postwar era when we substituted modernist ideology for civic design to the point where most buildings today serve as simple machines - the big box vending machine, the suburban "machine for living," the office park, etc.
Behavioral?
Kunstler also uses some humorous dialog to argue that our suburban habitats - besides merely inducing obesity in children - also "induce immense amounts of anxiety and depression in children." There is a lot of validity to this statement - after all, it is typical for suburban children to express profuse boredom and misery when they live in suburbs. Kunstler concludes that these environments have led to some very erratic behavioral patterns in children: "We know what is going on in these [suburban] houses. We know that little Skippy is loading his Uzi down here, getting ready for homeroom. We know that his sister Heather, 14 years old, is turning tricks up here to support her drug habit."
Cultural?
Kunstler argues that the prevalence of suburban sprawl has led to a cultural consciousness where we can no longer draw distinctions between the urban and the rural. The suburb contains the worst traits of both worlds - it has none of the natural beauty of the country but all of the crushing isolation. The suburb has none of the street life and vibrant entertainment of the city but all of the traffic congestion. Our cities have become damaged at the expense of suburbia to the point that we now assume we can solve the problems of the urban by trying to drag the rural (artificial expanses of nature) into the city.
Ecological?
Kunstler concludes the lecture by stressing that no amount of renewable fuels will allow us to run this suburban lifestyle because it has grown to an unsustainable scale around the assumption that an everlasting supply of fossil fuels would support the infrastructure forever. Renewable fuels simply cannot scale to meet the energy demands of a suburbia that flourished and depends on fossil duels.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
Kunstler presents some intricate and interesting diagrams drawn by several New Urbanist architects that show how portions of suburbia can be densified and retrofitted to form real walkable communities. There are other illustrations as well which can also serve as "pattern books" for the general public as it begins to embark on the process of building walkable, sustainable communities.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
Even before I saw this lecture I tended to agree with most of the arguments Kunstler makes and there was nothing in this video I found unconvincing. I can imagine, however, that much of the audience was probably shocked into disbelief when Kunstler asserted that our current suburban lifestyle would not be able to survive in the transition to renewable energy - many young people today engage in grandiose, technotriumphalist thinking and assume that electric cars and "technology" will allow us to transition effortlessly into a new world free of oil.
What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
Kunstler mentioned an interesting theory for why Americans have such a strong bias against urban living - unlike older places in the world, our cities grew up with the industrial revolution so they quickly turned into smoky hellholes. Americans thus assumed very early on that urban life was very uncomfortable and dangerous. It would be interesting to further analyze this interesting thesis - an individual could examine other culture's attitudes towards urban living and see - if there are negative attitudes in other parts of the world - whether dirty industrialization is the driving factor behind the undesirability of urban life. If a correlation could be found we would be able to take concrete steps to turn around the antiurban bias in our culture. Since our cities are no longer dirty industrial powerhouses we could convince even more people to move into them and revitalize them by stressing that new amenities could be built inside them - they could begin to offer the vibrant civic life that European cities seem to offer so effortlessly. (As Kunstler said, Europeans don't need to hold "craft fairs" to get people to mingle in their cities - people go there because they like them instinctively.)
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
The film was specifically directed to an audience of young people - people who already feel a sort of disillusion towards suburban living (at least much more so than our parents did). Young people in America feel that something is wrong with suburbia but they have a difficult time describing why exactly they feel that way - Kunstler uses humor to help them articulate why exactly suburbia lends itself so easily to ridicule. Older generations might easily dismiss Kunstler because they are sunk into the "psychology of previous investment" but the positive response of the audience to Kunstler's lecture shows that people are at least going to leave the lecture with an understanding of why exactly suburbia is so unsustainable and, perhaps later on in life, they will expend their own energy and resources into building and repairing walkable communities. The fact that gentrification in our urban areas is primarily driven by younger people shows that this audience is already sympathetic to Kunstler's arguments.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
Kunstler realizes that no single individual can reverse the tide of suburban sprawl; however he argues that the emergence of a general social consensus against suburbia is possible if enough individuals realize how wasteful and unsustainable this lifestyle really is. Hence Kunstler urges the audience to stop referring to themselves as "consumers" because "Consumers are different than citizens. Consumers do not have obligations, responsibilities, and duties to their fellow human beings. As long as you're using that word consumer in the public discussion you will be degrading the quality of the discussion we're having and we're going to continue being clueless going into this very difficult future."
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
Does the film convey different perspectives on the issues?
The lecture does not incorporate arguments offered by proponents of suburban sprawl - people like Randal O'Toole and Robert Bruegmann argue that suburbia is perfectly sustainable but they often resort to specious econometrics and faulty statistics to make their cases.
Is it overly “balanced”?
No, the lecture very effectively and humorously makes a case for the downfall of suburbia and it does not incorporate any contrarian arguments from sprawl proponents. The lecture is not meant to serve as a balanced debate on suburbia. Kunstler makes clear that a debate over whether suburbia is "good" or "bad" is irrelevant in an era where suburbia will become dysfunctional whether we like it or not.
Does it enhance scientific literacy? If so, what kind of scientific literacy is promoted?
The lecture is a discussion on urbanism, thus Kunstler uses architectural terminology to describe to the audience exactly why we need to design buildings and neighborhoods that help to define a sense of place: "Your ability to create places that are meaningful depends entirely on your ability to define space with buildings and to employ the vocabularies, grammars, syntaxes, rhythms, and patterns of architecture in order to inform us who we are." Kunstler continues by showing us that this is done through various urban elements - street walls, ground-level retail, public squares, street trees, etc.
Does it enroll viewers, or preach at them?
The lecture relies on humor to connect with the audience and the numerous criticisms of our society are not directed at any specific people but rather directed at the American culture at large. Still, those comfortable with suburban living will feel the Kunstler is unfairly attacking them directly.
Does it include images or examples that are likely to stick with viewers?
Yes, but in an interesting way. None of the imagery is particularly shocking or eye-opening, but Kunstler connects mundane images of suburbia to humorous anecdotes to set into the audiences' mind a specific impression of these places as being seriously deficient and pathetic. Thus an image of a boring, drab exurban house is connected with an anecdote about a suburban kid going crazy and embarking on a shooting spree and an image of a boring, blank wall on an urban building is connected with an anecdote about a bunch of tired, cynical architects who no longer care about the quality of the buildings they are designing but are merely pumping out another "facility" like workers on a factory line.
The Tragedy of Suburbia - James Howard Kunstler, 2004
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The thesis of this lecture by James Howard Kunstler is that we have invested so much into sprawled suburban construction and shoddy suburban architecture that we have essentially created many places that are "not worth caring about." Kunstler argues that poor civic architecture and poor urban planning has resulted in the creation of an American landscape that is ugly and unsustainable. Kunstler concludes that no amount of remewable fuels will allow us to continue running this sprawling mess in the future and that we will by default have to revert to relying on the practices of New Urbanism to build new communities and local cultures in the coming era of oil scarcity.
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
Kunstler presents some intricate and interesting diagrams drawn by several New Urbanist architects that show how portions of suburbia can be densified and retrofitted to form real walkable communities. There are other illustrations as well which can also serve as "pattern books" for the general public as it begins to embark on the process of building walkable, sustainable communities.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
Even before I saw this lecture I tended to agree with most of the arguments Kunstler makes and there was nothing in this video I found unconvincing. I can imagine, however, that much of the audience was probably shocked into disbelief when Kunstler asserted that our current suburban lifestyle would not be able to survive in the transition to renewable energy - many young people today engage in grandiose, technotriumphalist thinking and assume that electric cars and "technology" will allow us to transition effortlessly into a new world free of oil.
What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc?
Kunstler mentioned an interesting theory for why Americans have such a strong bias against urban living - unlike older places in the world, our cities grew up with the industrial revolution so they quickly turned into smoky hellholes. Americans thus assumed very early on that urban life was very uncomfortable and dangerous. It would be interesting to further analyze this interesting thesis - an individual could examine other culture's attitudes towards urban living and see - if there are negative attitudes in other parts of the world - whether dirty industrialization is the driving factor behind the undesirability of urban life. If a correlation could be found we would be able to take concrete steps to turn around the antiurban bias in our culture. Since our cities are no longer dirty industrial powerhouses we could convince even more people to move into them and revitalize them by stressing that new amenities could be built inside them - they could begin to offer the vibrant civic life that European cities seem to offer so effortlessly. (As Kunstler said, Europeans don't need to hold "craft fairs" to get people to mingle in their cities - people go there because they like them instinctively.)
What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
The film was specifically directed to an audience of young people - people who already feel a sort of disillusion towards suburban living (at least much more so than our parents did). Young people in America feel that something is wrong with suburbia but they have a difficult time describing why exactly they feel that way - Kunstler uses humor to help them articulate why exactly suburbia lends itself so easily to ridicule. Older generations might easily dismiss Kunstler because they are sunk into the "psychology of previous investment" but the positive response of the audience to Kunstler's lecture shows that people are at least going to leave the lecture with an understanding of why exactly suburbia is so unsustainable and, perhaps later on in life, they will expend their own energy and resources into building and repairing walkable communities. The fact that gentrification in our urban areas is primarily driven by younger people shows that this audience is already sympathetic to Kunstler's arguments.
What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
Kunstler realizes that no single individual can reverse the tide of suburban sprawl; however he argues that the emergence of a general social consensus against suburbia is possible if enough individuals realize how wasteful and unsustainable this lifestyle really is. Hence Kunstler urges the audience to stop referring to themselves as "consumers" because "Consumers are different than citizens. Consumers do not have obligations, responsibilities, and duties to their fellow human beings. As long as you're using that word consumer in the public discussion you will be degrading the quality of the discussion we're having and we're going to continue being clueless going into this very difficult future."
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
- Does the film convey different perspectives on the issues?
- The lecture does not incorporate arguments offered by proponents of suburban sprawl - people like Randal O'Toole and Robert Bruegmann argue that suburbia is perfectly sustainable but they often resort to specious econometrics and faulty statistics to make their cases.
- Is it overly “balanced”?
- No, the lecture very effectively and humorously makes a case for the downfall of suburbia and it does not incorporate any contrarian arguments from sprawl proponents. The lecture is not meant to serve as a balanced debate on suburbia. Kunstler makes clear that a debate over whether suburbia is "good" or "bad" is irrelevant in an era where suburbia will become dysfunctional whether we like it or not.
- Does it enhance scientific literacy? If so, what kind of scientific literacy is promoted?
- The lecture is a discussion on urbanism, thus Kunstler uses architectural terminology to describe to the audience exactly why we need to design buildings and neighborhoods that help to define a sense of place: "Your ability to create places that are meaningful depends entirely on your ability to define space with buildings and to employ the vocabularies, grammars, syntaxes, rhythms, and patterns of architecture in order to inform us who we are." Kunstler continues by showing us that this is done through various urban elements - street walls, ground-level retail, public squares, street trees, etc.
- Does it enroll viewers, or preach at them?
- The lecture relies on humor to connect with the audience and the numerous criticisms of our society are not directed at any specific people but rather directed at the American culture at large. Still, those comfortable with suburban living will feel the Kunstler is unfairly attacking them directly.
- Does it include images or examples that are likely to stick with viewers?
- Yes, but in an interesting way. None of the imagery is particularly shocking or eye-opening, but Kunstler connects mundane images of suburbia to humorous anecdotes to set into the audiences' mind a specific impression of these places as being seriously deficient and pathetic. Thus an image of a boring, drab exurban house is connected with an anecdote about a suburban kid going crazy and embarking on a shooting spree and an image of a boring, blank wall on an urban building is connected with an anecdote about a bunch of tired, cynical architects who no longer care about the quality of the buildings they are designing but are merely pumping out another "facility" like workers on a factory line.
.< Back to my portfolio